Date: Mon, 09 Feb 1998 20:33:02 -0800
To: Andrew Arensburger <>
From: David McDougall
Subject: Re: Mitochonrdrial Eve is Younger Than First Thought 

At 06:34 PM 2/9/98 -0500, Andrew Arensburger wrote:
>On Mon, 09 Feb 1998 18:19:55 PST, David McDougall wrote:
>> At 04:45 PM 2/9/98 -0500, Andrew Arensburger wrote:
>> >	Could you please take a look at
>> >
>> Well, I see what is typical;  an evolutionist making statements like, "I
>> wonder what his point is," and then leaving out the point.
>	You seem to have missed my intent: take a look at the
>quotations from Henry McHenry and Dean Falk. In the first case, Patton
>omits a crucial bit of context: McHenry is only talking about a single
>bone, but Patton makes it sound as if he is talking about the entire
>	This means Patton is dishonest.

He is not dishonest and has never been interested in anything but the facts
as far as I can see.  He has always presented both sides honestly.  The fact
is that one erroneous bone or observation that debunks the conclusion makes
the hypothesis false.  That is science.  Whether it is one bone or every
bone, if the thing doesn't fit the model, it is not justification for
reporting it as you see it in spite of the evidence.  THAT is dishonest.

At any rate, you don't know how much time he may have spent before or after
that discussion being careful to present all of the facts before he gave his
conclusion which is bound to include his most compelling reasons for
concluding what he did.  He often debunks the conclusions of the "expert" he
is quoting and more properly classifies the evidence as it was honestly
observed.  He may then present the evidence as it was actually observed
rather than repeating the erroneous conlusion of the "expert."  You see, Don
Patton BELIEVES in the integrity of the scientific process.  When he has
presented the writings of others, he has been very careful to present the
data like, 'this is not what the author is intending to hypothesize, but his
observation and acknowledgements of these facts are not reflected in his
conclusions.... here's why.'  I know because I've done what you refuse to
do; I've seen the WHOLE presentation, not just tidbits.

>	In the second case, Patton adds to the text: Falk's article
>says that it is not clear whether the specimen in question is of the
>genus _Homo_ or the genus _Australopithecus_. Patton *inserts* the
>words "Homo habilis," which makes it sound as if there was no doubt.
>	This means Patton is a liar.

Australopithecus is the biggest fraud of all of the supposed categories of
"ancestral man."  He absolutely destroys the foundation of this "man" by
presenting the facts as the evolutionists printed them.  Perhaps he mispoke
or was intentionally misquoted, but Don Patton is no liar.  On the other
hand, he might have had a reason for using the term that was presented.
Without seeing the whole presentation, it would be a harsh judgement to
conclude that he is a liar.  On the other hand, if this is all you can find
in the sea of evidence against your beloved "science," then it speaks
volumes as to the lack of actual evidence you have to support your faith.

>	On top of this, in the section on Noah's Ark, Patton
>demonstrates his inability to use a simple mathematical formula
>correctly, not to mention the fact that he didn't bother checking his
>assumptions against published data.

If the published data is erroneous, why can't he publish the truth?  Until
you see the man's entire presentation and judge for yourself whether he
seems to have either mispoke or was misrepresented, you may want to hold
your accusations about his integrity... especially considering the obvious,
admitted and then retracted agenda of the evolutionist.  Patton has the same
credentials as any other of these so-called PhDs in their fields and just as
much "right" to publish the facts as he honestly sees them as do they.  A
gaggle of idiots each supporting the other does not make one man whose views
are supported by the preponderance of evidence dishonest.

>	Given all of the above, is there any reason why I should trust
>anything he says?

Given the fact that all of the above is based on falsehood which you readily
receive, it would be all the reason you need to reject the facts.
Evolutionists up until recently have stated that the fossil evidence MUST
support the theory or it is dead.  Of course, they wre only echoing Darwin
in this.  They all agree that the fossil evidence better supports the
creation model and now, (instead of recognizing the validity of their
original falsification criteria),  have postulated a theory in which
evidence and the requirement thereof is for fools.  If that is true, I'd
rather be a fool for the truth than a damned, (and I use that word in its
proper context), liar.

"If" the God which you reject is in fact the creator and ruler of this
universe, then worse than your support of these liars is the fact that you
make God a liar.  Pitty that you are making that choice... but you are
indeed free to do so.
David McDougall

Chapter 20 | Chapter 22